Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ww Wa
Air
Vv
Water
Vs
V
Solid
Ws
W
160
Ga = Apparent Specific Gravity
Ga
= 2.8
0
Wet density curve
150
RCC density, pcf
120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Moisture content, %
Proctor compaction test is plotted with the zero-air-voids line (see Determine dry density:
Figure 2). In most material, the maximum wet density usually reaches γ d = γ / (1+ w)
a peak density at a higher water content than the maximum dry
= 152.40/(1+0.070)
density. This is due to the fact that with increasing water content, the
voids in the soil mass continue to be filled with water until the soil = 142.43 pcf
mass becomes too soft to sustain the compaction equipment. At
higher water contents, the soil mass contains more voids (air and Determine volume of constituents as shown in Figure 3:
water), is less dense, and has increased plasticity (softness). Hence
the wet density curve begins to fall off. This can be complicated by Ww = 152.40 lb − 142.43 lb = 9.97 lb
the absorption (both the percent of absorption and the absorption
rate) of the soil.
9.97 lb
Vw = = 0.1598 ft3
In order to demonstrate the properties described above, an example 62.4 pcf
problem will be used. With the definitions described above, the basic
engineering properties of a soil (including an RCC mixture) can be
412 lb
calculated using soil mechanics. Example 1 below calculates various Wc (cement) = = 15.26 lb
engineering properties, given the apparent specific gravity of the 27 ft3
material and the results from a modified Proctor test on an RCC mix-
ture. General material properties of the soil aggregate used in the 15.26 lb
Vc = = 0.0776 ft3
test are summarized in Table 1. 3.15 × 62.4 pcf
There are important differences between soil mechanics properties Weight of material
=
and the properties used in concrete practice. For example, there are Specific gravity of material × Unit weight of water
several different ways to calculate the specific gravity. The specific
gravity of the solid particles of the soil, not including the void spaces, The specific gravity or relative density of the aggregate used in mix
is called the “true or absolute” specific gravity, which usually ranges proportioning design can be based on either saturated surface dry
between 2.6 to 2.7 for most soil. This is different from the apparent (SSD) or oven dry materials. For the following example the Gssd, and a
specific gravity (dry weight) used in soil mechanics for compaction as mixture with the same total unit weight as Example 1, is used.
described above, and the saturated surface dry specific gravity used in
Example 2: A no-slump concrete mix consists of 3,491.70 pcy of
concrete mixture proportioning. Some of the resulting differences in
aggregate (saturated surface dry) with 57 % coarse aggregate, 412
properties are demonstrated in the next section.
pcy of cement, and a water to cement ratio of 0.5124 (note for pur-
poses of the example problem that the water cement ratio used herein
Concrete Methodology was carried to more significant digits than is typical in concrete practice).
The same material used in Example 1 will be used in Example 2. The
Proportioning RCC by Volumetric Method. Concrete proportioning mixture proportions including unit weights, absolute volumes, and air
can be performed by both weight and volumetric methods. Volumetric content are calculated on the next page.
proportioning is performed using the specific gravity of each ingredient
4
Roller-Compacted Concrete Density
Calculate unit weights for each of the constituents for a one yd3 batch: Calculate air content:
Volumetric Concrete
Soil Mechanics Proportions
Unit Volume Unit Volume
Volume (1 ft 3) (1 ft 3)
Weight Weight Volume
Air Air
0.0347 0.0 lb 0.0 lb 0.0352
Water 0.1252
0.1598 Water 9.97 lb 7.82 lb
Solids (SSD)
Solids (Dry) (1.09 + 1.06 lb Includes Absorbed
absorbed) Water in
Aggregate
Figure 4. Comparison of constituent distribution based on soil mechanics definitions and concrete volumetric proportions.
5
Free water = 7.82 lb mixture continues to decrease in the compaction test until a point
approximately 1 % over optimum. Placement of RCC at optimum
moisture content and maximum density would be expected to result
Absorbed water in
in an air content of the compacted mix of about 3.5 %. In practice,
73.71 most specifications accept a minimum compactive effort of 98 % of
coarse aggregate: = 73.71− = 1.09 lb
(1 + 0.015) ) the maximum density resulting in a higher air content (5.5 %), for
the material in that example. Lower entrapped air content provides
Dry weight of more desirable hardened RCC properties. Also it is easier to compact
coarse aggregate: = 73.71 lb − 1.09 lb = 72.62 lb slightly wetter mixtures. Therefore, for this example, selection of a mix at
a water content that is 0.5 % to 1 % above optimum moisture content
would provide the best opportunity for a workable, high density, low
Absorbed water in
air content mixture. For actual application of RCC in a project, the
55.61 lb mixture proportions shown above would be re-proportioned to a
fine aggregate: = 55.61 lb − = 1.06 lb
(1+ 0.0195) mix that would yield an air content of 2 % or lower (an example of
Dry weight of re-proportioning is shown in Appendix A in the Design Manual for
RCC Spillways and Overtopping Protection—PCA 2002).
fine aggregate: = 55.61 lb − 1.06 lb = 54.55 lb
The modified Proctor compaction test can be an efffective method of
Dry weight of selecting a water content that is both workable in the field and suit-
total aggregate: = 72.62 lb + 54.55 lb = 127.17 lb able to meet the required RCC field properties Another benefit of
the modified Proctor test for field control is that changes in basic
7.82 + 1.09 + 1.06 material properties automatically change the compaction curve.
Total water content: = = 7.00 % Frequent measurement of the specific gravity, gradation and absorption
127.17+ 15.26
during construction will also allow adjustments of the mix propor-
7.82 tions to accommodate changes as they occur.
Free water content: = = 5.5 %
127.17+ 15.26
Cylinder Preparation
It is clear from the examples above that there are some variations in the
There are numerous methods for the preparation of cylinders at the
calculated air content (3.47 % in soil mechanics versus 3.52% in con-
laboratory stage that have been shown to be representative of actu-
crete methodology) and water content (7.0 % oven dry water content
al field placement conditions. Cylinder preparation procedures that
following soil mechanics versus 5.5 % free water and 7.0% oven dry
have been used include: a) 10-ton vibratory roller (cores), b) Hilti or
water content for concrete volumetric proportioning). The differences are
Kango vibrating hammer, c) pneumatic tamper, d) Vebe table, e)
primarily accounted for by the application of the definitions by the differ-
internal vibrator, f) internal rodding, and g) Proctor test. The effec-
ent practices (such as the specific gravity, water content, and water:cement
tiveness of the different methods of cylinder preparation varies
ratio that is used for proportioning aggregate content, and proportioning
depending on the workability of the RCC mixture. The effectiveness
aggregate as a percentage of saturated surface dry aggregate), and
of each method (represented as a percentage of the maximum
rounding of significant digits. The example problems demonstrate the
achievable strength) over the approximate range of moisture content
importance of distinguishing between the terms used in soil mechanics
(in excess of the SSD aggregate condition) is shown in Figure 5.
and concrete practice (e.g. the total (oven dry) water content versus free
water content), and in the communication of mix proportions in laborato- The pros and cons of each of the cylinder preparation methods are
ry programs, design and specifications, mixing plants, and field testing. summarized below:
The properties for both methodologies should be determined and docu-
mented in the project record.
• Certainly the use of a full-scale roller (i.e., 10-ton vibratory
roller) would provide a close representation of actual field
As mentioned earlier RCC placed at optimum moisture content placement conditions. However this method would require
(ASTM D 1557) contains a higher air content than is typically large quantities of material, a large work area, and the use of
achieved in field placement and compaction. equipment not readily available at testing laboratories, fol-
lowed by coring after a time delay, to obtain samples for test-
Using the procedures shown in Examples 1 and 2, engineering prop- ing. Consequently this method is generally impractical except
erties at different water contents can be used to further evaluate for large projects where test sections are often required.
RCC mixtures. Six different water contents were evaluated for the • The Hilti/Kango hammer method can also be used for a mod-
example material, corresponding to the six modified Proctor com- erate range of mixture workability. This method has the advan-
pactions test points as shown in Table 2. Evaluation of the engineer- tage of using equipment (see Figure 6) that is readily
ing properties in Table 2, shows that the minimum void ratio occurs available, quite useable by laboratory personnel, and with
at the optimum moisture content. However, the air content of the amplitude and frequency very similar to normal field compaction
6
Roller-Compacted Concrete Density
Relative to Optimum Moisture -3% -1% Optimum Moisture + 0.5 % +1% +2%
Dry Density 139.13 pcf 139.53 pcf 142.43 pcf 141.12 pcf 139.72 pcf 138.17 pcf
Mechanics
Soil
Wet Density 144.70 pcf 147.90 pcf 152.40 pcf 151.70 pcf 150.90 pcf 150.60 pcf
Water Content (Free water) 93.62 pcy 169.12 pcy 211.10 pcy 228.21 244.89 pcy 279.54 pcy
Concrete
80 Vebe = 34
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Free water content
Figure 5. Cylinder preparation method versus relative workability range. (It must be noted that the curve above is based on conventional
concrete definitions using the free water content, i.e. the moisture content not including water absorbed in the aggregate. The actual,
oven dry, water content would be higher when the total water—absorbed plus free water—is included.) Ref 8.
equipment. A standard test procedure (ASTM C 1435) provides • The pneumatic tamper (see Figure 7) can be used for a moderate
repeatable results; however, depending on the mix design, range of mixture workability. It is readily available at construction
compacted densities may be less then that achieveable in the sites, can be easily rented for laboratory use, and has been
field. The method specifies placement of the material in three shown to provide RCC cylinder densities that are similar to
lifts, similar to the standard concrete test for rodding cylinders actual field conditions. The pneumatic tamper requires equip-
of slump concrete. However, RCC is a no-slump concrete with ment not commonly used by laboratory personnel, and the
very low workability. As a result the number of lifts may need amplitude and frequency are significantly different than with
to be increased to four or five to provide a cylinder that would normal field compaction equipment. Also there are no ASTM
be expected to be similar to normal field compaction. standard test procedures available.
7
that is generally 10 to 15 pounds per cubic foot lower than the wet
density. In general the wet density will remain constant throughout
the chemical reaction (curing) process. While RCC does behave as
a soil or granular base type material when it is first placed, the
“optimum” water content from the modified Proctor test is typically
less than required for full compaction (consolidation) of the RCC.
The result is placement to the maximum dry density at optimum
water content will generally result in more entrapped air voids than
conventional concrete.
10
Roller-Compacted Concrete Density
References
11
Note: This document is written in English units. To convert to metric units use the conversion table presented below:
Pound per cubic foot (pcf) Kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3) 16.0185
Pound per cubic yard (pcy) Kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3) 0.5933
Portland Cement Association ("PCA") is a not-for-profit organization and provides this publi-
cation solely for the continuing education of qualified professionals. THIS PUBLICATION
SHOULD ONLY BE USED BY QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS who possess all required license(s),
who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided
herein, and who accept total responsibility for the application of this information. OTHER An organization of cement companies to
READERS SHOULD OBTAIN ASSISTANCE FROM A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL BEFORE PROCEEDING. improve and extend the uses of portland
PCA AND ITS MEMBERS MAKE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THIS cement and concrete through market
PUBLICATION OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. IN PARTICULAR, NO WARRANTY development, engineering, research,
IS MADE OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. PCA AND ITS education, and public affairs work.
MEMBERS DISCLAIM ANY PRODUCT LIABILITY (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY © 2004 Portland Cement Association.
STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT) IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PUBLICATION OR ANY INFORMATION All rights reserved.
CONTAINED HEREIN.
This publication is intended SOLELY for use by PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL who are compe-
tent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided herein, and who
will accept total responsibility for the application of this information. The Portland Cement
Association DISCLAIMS any and all RESPONSIBILITY and LIABILITY for the accuracy of and the
application of the information contained in this publication to the full extent permitted by law.
IS541